U of I to review removal of religion professor

Pretty interesting article...

He is a teacher... He is teaching the views of a religious organisation on homosexuality. He shouldn't be barred from teaching simply because people don't like those views - It is the people who hold those views who are at fault, not the person explaining them.

While the professor may share said views or some people might not want him to teach those views is besides the point. He went about informing the students of it in a relatively professional and informative way. He never said that he shared the views or that he supported them, he simply gave the students the information. That is what a professor does right?

Also - the fact that they labelled the law firm representing him as being 'conservative' is a little bit biased. The political and moral standing of a particular law firm shouldn't be of any importance in the news article...

Kaleb.

 

He should be removed because he's preaching against homosexuality.

If a professor was using the Bible to preach against racial equality, gender equality, and more he would be removed for the same thing.

And don't say no one used the Bible like that, they did. That's what religious groups did, they preached against racial equality and gender equality before homosexuality, and now they're on homosexuality, and soon they'll be on something else.

 

On reading the article I think you will find that it explains that the professor was teaching on the views of the catholic church on homosexuality. In a class on catholic viewpoints, it is a topic that would need to be covered - simply teaching of something is not the same as preaching it. The fact that he may or may not share those views is irrelevant so long as it does not interfere in his teaching.

 

He didn't just say "Homosexuality is a sin according to this here book." and explained why.

That would be completely different. He went on and on about how homosexuality is a sin, mentioning how it's a crime against nature, repulsing, and so on.

 

Wait... so a professor teaching a class on catholic morality is canned for teaching what catholic morality proclaims?

This sets a dangerous precedence that will have us fucked in the ass. Sarah palin will now push for science teaches being fired for teaching science.
I am not being sarcastic.

he taught catholic view in a class specifically talking about catholic views...

 

I don't know how I feel about this. If it is the university's policy, then so be it. It will NOT set a 'dangerous precedence' since it has nothing to do with the government; it's just one school's policy. But yeah, anyone taking a Catholic theology class had to be aware of the potential for offensive speech. This leads me to believe that he was REALLY acting out of line in order for such a severe response to occur. I think we don't know enough about the circumstances and what exactly happened to make an accurate judgment on the matter.

 

If he was just teaching it without a personal bias, then I don't see there being much of a problem. If he was preaching it, then of course there's a problem. If he was only teaching about the anti-homosexuality views in the Church without showing the movements for gay rights in the Church, then he's just not being a very good teacher.

I could show you handouts I've been given when we were studying homosexuality in Islam which go into religious arguments against homosexuality, supported by scriptural and other ideas. If you're going to study religion, you have to accept that you will have to study and try to understand viewpoints which are bigoted and ugly and totally against everything you believe in.
But then the article just doesn't give out these details. We don't know if he was shoving these views down the students' throats and supporting them himself or if he was merely outlining them and offering counter arguments too…

 

I believe that a teacher should teach the facts and not opinions. I think opinions should be given in a non classroom atmosphere.

 

He didn't just say what Catholic morality proclaims. He announced it, saying it was right.

Huge difference.

There's a difference between saying the Bible says slavery is okay and saying that slavery itself is okay. :/

 

Freedom of Speech, and freedom of Religion. Two of many aspects that are the foundation of the US constitution.

 

http://forums3.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=62324&start=0

Hopefully this article will help to clarify the issue for all of us...

It seems to me from reading further into this that the professor was in fact just doing his job.

It is similar to the idea of racism. The Nazi party believes that the Aryan race is superior. A professor who shares those views could very well teach a class that Nazi's believe this - the fact that the group holds that view does not mean it should not be taught.

 

Without prejudice to context and prior discussion, these few lines do have some merits in my opinion. Sometimes, as professors, one must be very careful in drawing the line between conveying the opinions around a matter, and imposing them.

In my experience, when professors are to state their opinions, they usually proclaim clearly that it is their opinion, (almost always present the other side of the argument) and state that they are subjected to error.

However, I have no idea as to what actually happened in class... The two articles I have read seem to have framed the situation differently in opposing views. I don't actually know if the Professor was objectively telling his students that it is through the reasoning of "Natural Moral Law" that homosexuality is wrong, or that he said that the reasoning of "Natural Moral Law" is right and that homosexuality is wrong.

 

given that the class was about catholic doctrine...

 

Hate speech laws are there for a reason. That university enforces that.

What he was saying was just short of saying you dirty faggots.

 

There's a difference between preaching and teaching.

If he was simply teaching his students why the Catholic Church was against Homosexuality, it'd be fine (to me). But if he were saying why the Catholic Church was against it, and why he agreed, it'd be wrong.

Very fine line, in my opinion.

However, unless I'm mistaken, colleges aren't exempt from the national law that prevents teaching religion in school (Ever since the whole Under God debate with the Pledge of Allegiance)

 

First off? STOP QUOTING EVERYTHING. It's absolutely eyeball-peeling horrible to have to see that huge block grow larger each time.

Secondly, I really think that firing him may have been overboard if he had tenure. But he did not. As a professor, you walk a razor's edge trying to keep your position without tenure. You really have no way of battling the university if they choose to let you go for whatever reason. This time the university was taking a firm pro-gay stance which I fully support.

Upon reading the second article, he claims to 'freedom of speech' are indicative that he may well have been voicing his opinion that the Catholics are correct about the ebilness of teh gays. In any case, everyone needs learn what freedom of speech entails. It allows protection from the government, not private institutions. If you run around a business shouting gay slurs, your boss can fire you on those grounds. You cannot claim that it is freedom of speech. So if this man was indeed being a big ol' bigot, the university has every right to take whatever measures they see fit to tell him to sit down and shut up.

Finally, I find it interesting that it was someone not in his class that took offense. I'm still hesitant about the entire issue because of that. I want to support the college for getting rid of him if he was truly trying to outcast gay people, but I also acknowledge that he may have just been trying to teach the curriculum.

Weird, weird.

EDIT: To the above poster, why is it wrong to teach the 'Why'? It's a part of their dogma as much as any other facet of their religion. I think the 'Why' is essential in understanding how people can twist their minds to believe such ludicrous claims.

 

Where did he say that? I've read several articles about this and have yet to see any quote in which he professes a personal beleif. I've even read the was is being claimed as the email he sent which caused the controversy, and don't find anything that comes close to hate speech. There is something that taken out of context, without fully reading it, can be made to look like an improper comment, but nothing in context comes close.

The very worst that can be said, is that the professor may or may not be misinformed about the health effects of anal sex. And even then what he means by it is vauge and second had as it was something told to him by a physcian. Even beyond that, that paragraph of the email is a demonstration of a particular moral veiwpoint's arguement. He's not proclaiming it as his beleif. He's not saying it is correct. He's saying that, based on this moral teaching philosphy, the principle of utiltarianism is applied thus.

You can read the email for yourself here: http://americansfortruth.com/issues/gay-activist-hypocrisy

If you have an article that quotes him as saying that Natural Moral Law is a correct moral viewpoint, please share it. He would be completly in the wrong then. But as I said, I haven't seen anyone quote him saying that and the email (assuming it is accurate, I don't feel 100% confident in it due to difficulty in finding a primary source or more repeutable sources. I was posted on the Huffington Post too, which was also then linked to by other mainstream news source, but I'm reluctant to attribute authenticity given the biased origin.) does not make the claim.

The email issuing the complaint made mention of additional instance during the class itself which obviously can't be verified. And given the nature of his position (he's paid by and appointed by the Catholic church under an agreement with Illinois), I would not readily dismiss. But based on the articles and the complaint email, the professor's email is suppose to be the sole cause for his dismisal. If so, I do not see reason for his dismissal.

 

I think this is more a case of a student misinterpreting the meaning of what a Professor has taught and instead taking the teaching of the viewpoint to be preaching of the viewpoint.

In the students letter they mention that the Professor in his letter states that homosexuality is against natural human law, or somesuch thing. He then goes on to accuse the Professor of hate crime based on this accusation... The student, not being a member of the class may have simply not realised that the repeated use of the term 'natural' in the context of the letter was referring to the Natural Moral Theory rather than his own views.

I saw nothing wrong in the Professors letter, although I myself may disagree with his stated, and possibly misinformed, views on the health aspects of homosexual sex. He may well be bigoted and against homosexuality, but he addresses it in a mature way and offers several different views on the issue, basing it in moral theories rather than opinion.

On that alone, there should be no reason for him to lose his job over the ltter.